Rekha Patel loses her house

[notorial dissent]

Crackhead Ken’s talents know no bounds.

(Except law and film making clearly)

Yes, but you can't fault him for sticking with his fortés.

[The Seventh String]

I would say it is or was highly unlikely there is or would be an appeal. As I recall, Wrekha slunk, or was it stormed, I can't keep them straight anymore, out of of the Chancery hearing and went in to hiding

I imagine leaving the court while proceedings were ongoing might just count a little bit against her chances of getting leave to appeal. That sort of thing never looks good and leaves her wide open to the question “if you are saying this now, why didn’t you use the opportunity to say it in court so the judge could consider it.....?”

And if she’s out of time on top of walking out, as you say, an appeal is unlikely to be granted even if she asks. Unless there’s something arguably very wrong about the judgement.

[The Seventh String]

A Chancery Court judgement can be appealed to the civil court of appeal. Though being allowed an appeal is far from automatic.

Whatever happened to "Review and Revisision", the technique that Tom Crawford used to void the judgement against (or was it for) him?

You forget. He has his own court which uses his procedures to apply his laws and in which he never loses on account of him being plaintif, judge and jury.

[The Seventh String]

@TheSeventhString thanks for your answer. Money, competent representation, and a chance to succeed are three things Rekha Patel certainly lacks.

I should probably have added that if you get to the appeal court you don’t get just the one judge you get three of the sharpest judges England and Wales has to offer. And they’re much more inquisitorial than the lower courts, ask all kinds of tricky questions, possess first rate bullshit detectors and take few prisoners.

I’m not a lawyer so I’ve never appeared, as they put it, in such high circles. I’ve watched a few cases in which I had an earlier involvement from the gallery though and you need nerves of steel and a mind like a legal encyclopedia if you’re standing up in front of that lot.

Rambling Rekha, with or without her landlord, vs. a QC and junior, in front of three Lord or Lady Justices doing their stuff is something I’d actually consider paying good money to see.

[notorial dissent]

I may be wrong, but I just don't see Wrekha appealing, first she'd have to get real help and actually do something, and she isn't real in to that, and second she'd have to actually file and get a court date and there is no indication of that happening, and third she has a bad case of "you're not the boss of me" and "the rules don't apply to me" so I just don't see her doing what she should, not that it would get her anywhere. They have her dead to rights on this and any real solicitor would tell her that, probably for free.

[The Seventh String]

It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if a solicitor - or solicitors - had told her that she hadn’t a legal leg to stand on a long time ago.

[notorial dissent]

If she ever bothered t o do so, but she really doesn't strike me as the type to take advice from anyone, except the garden variety neighborhood idiot, as she seems to have done lately.

Is there any evidence of her even having representation for the first rounds of this epic fail?

I seem to remember her ranting about lawyers, but not ever about HER lawyers.

[BoomerSooner17]

This is purely speculative, but I imagine that if she had representation during the first rounds, she must have gone through lawyers the way that a certain large pink beaver goes through pints. There are, however two facts that argue against her having had (competent) representation: her abysmal loss record and, as notorial pointed out, the fact that she doesn't seem to have complained about her lawyers (which she would surely do, since she complains about everything).

[notorial dissent]

This is purely speculative, but I imagine that if she had representation during the first rounds, she must have gone through lawyers the way that a certain large pink beaver goes through pints. There are, however two facts that argue against her having had (competent) representation: her abysmal loss record and, as notorial pointed out, the fact that she doesn't seem to have complained about her lawyers (which she would surely do, since she complains about everything).

Two things lead me to my conclusion. The impressive, and expensive, fail she racked up, and continued to rack up, and the fact that she is cheap cheap cheap, on top of being very very stupid. She had illegal and unsanctioned work done on her house, she used an unlicensed incompetent contractor, and she thought she could get away with it all by simply ignoring the complaints. Points to cheap and stupid in my book.

[ArthurWankspittle]

If she ever bothered t o do so, but she really doesn't strike me as the type to take advice from anyone, except the garden variety neighborhood idiot who agrees with her, as she seems to have done lately.

FTFY

[Siegfried Shrink]

What does FTFY mean?

[rumpelstilzchen]

What does FTFY mean?

Fixed That For You.

[He Who Knows]

BoomerSooner wrote: This is purely speculative, but I imagine that if she had representation during the first rounds, she must have gone through lawyers the way that a certain large pink beaver goes through pints. There are, however two facts that argue against her having had (competent) representation: her abysmal loss record and, as notorial pointed out, the fact that she doesn't seem to have complained about her lawyers (which she would surely do, since she complains about everything).

Yes she did have a barrister, Henry Hendron, when she appealed at the High Court 3 years ago. His appearance is documented further up this thread - a public access barrister who's had his own share of problems including finding his dead 18-year-old Columbian bf in his flat following a drug overdose. Google him.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Why does the divine script writer insist that all the cast have to be larger than life?

It makes reality seem unrealistic.

[BoomerSooner17]

Probably to discourage mere mortals from developing sovcit/FMOTL-based sitcoms or reality television shows. After all, why watch made-up stuff when it can't possibly top the entertainment value of real life?

[The Seventh String]

Yes she did have a barrister, Henry Hendron, when she appealed at the High Court 3 years ago. His appearance is documented further up this thread - a public access barrister who's had his own share of problems including finding his dead 18-year-old Columbian bf in his flat following a drug overdose. Google him.

From what the Bar Council’s website says about his ongoing three year suspension - a conviction for supplying drugs and certain irregularities in his activity as a Head of Chambers - he certainly does have his problems.

Though I can’t somehow see any barrister, whatever their personal or business lifestyle, or anyone else with the vaguest understanding of the law advising Rekha that she was in with much of a chance, or even any chance at all. Unfortunately some people won’t be told and press ahead to defeat and a big legal bill regardless. One of the downsides of being a barrister is the “cab rank” principle which makes it very difficult for them to refuse to represent someone even if the client’s instructions are hopeless.

I wonder if she ever paid him.

[notorial dissent]

I wonder if she ever paid him.

Sounds to me like she found a like minded crazy person and even then it didn't work out. Notice he hasn't been heard from since.

I find it hard to believe that a solicitor would have to take a client who wouldn't listen to the and take advice and insisted on doing something that wasn't acceptable.

Considering her past track record, the likelihood of him actually getting paid is probably very slim. She's never paid for anything before except under extreme duress.

[ArthurWankspittle]

My suspicion would be Henry appeared in the early hearings, didn't get paid and / or fell out with Rekha over opinion and the law, and Rekha has scrabbled around since until she found Ken the unfinished film maker, who was cheaper and shared Rekha's opinion on things.

[notorial dissent]

I would suspect you have that pretty well right. Considering that he lost for her in court and on appeal twice, I can't imagine their relationship was all that good by the end. Not I suspect that it would have mattered much how good of a lawyer he was, as she had no case from start to finish. I think she actually came out ahead in that she didn't get sanctioned any more than she did on the judgments.

[The Seventh String]

I find it hard to believe that a solicitor would have to take a client who wouldn't listen to the and take advice and insisted on doing something that wasn't acceptable.

Solicitors may be different, but self-employed barristers, which are pretty much all the barristers who represent individual clients on a case-by-case basis are professionally obliged to work to the “cab rank rule”.

Which says there are only limited circumstances in which a barrister can refuse to take a client. The reason for the principle is to ensure anyone, no matter how reprehensible or disliked they or the crimes they are accused of are, will be able to obtain the services of a barrister.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cab-rank_rule

A barrister can withdraw from a case for various reasons, some of which include unacceptable behaviour by their client, but they don’t have total discretion in the matter and need to do it “by the book”. I would imagine a single court appearance involving Rekha would tick all the required boxes, even if her behaviour before that stage didn’t.